John Dewey is one of the twentieth century’s great minds, and great humanists. I’ve read his book A Common Faith, and found a good summary of it online. Quoting from the summary: “In A Common Faith Dewey strives to do three basic things: (1) to point out the differences in meaning between religion, in its historic and formalized sense, and religious experience, (2) to present a new basis of faith productive of religious experience which is divorced from historic religions with their supernatural connotations, and (3) to demonstrate the superiority of the proposed new basis of faith over the old."
The author continues: “Given the emancipation of religious experience from religions per se says Dewey, a new basis for faith emerges."
Further: “When the vital factors in this natural process are generally acknowledged in emotion, thought and action, the process will both be accelerated and purified through the elimination of that irrelevant element that culminates in the idea of the supernatural. When these factors attain the religious force that has been drafted into supernatural religions, the resulting reinforcement will be incalculable."
This is the vision that informs my Humanism. Dewey drew a distinction between the religions and the religious attitude. However, he was not dogmatic about the words.
The author continues: “Since there are actual, observable forces present in nature and society (e.g. artistic and intellectual endeavor, education, fellowship, friendship, and mental and physical growth) which produce humanly experienced goods and which evince capabilities of accomplishing envisioned ideal ends, Dewey would identify the functioning relationship between the actual forces and ideal ends as being ‘the divine’. In his own words he says, ‘It is this active relation between ideal and actual to which I would give the name God.’"
The final sentence was Dewey’s. Here was a leading light in our movement looking for a way to approach religion, and a conception of God, in the future. You need not share his vision but you should respect it.
We have a choice. We can look upon religion and everything attached to it as irredeemable, live in our own little echo chambers, and whine, bitch, moan and complain about the dreadful history of religion. To what end?
Or we can look for ways to approach religion that either offer a new way of looking at it. It is not necessary for religion of any and every kind to be eliminated. Our purposes will be achieved if religion comes to be divorced from the supernaturalism and authoritarianism of its past. We can throw up our hands and say it can never happen – to what end? – or we can look for ways to make the evolution happen. Even if we move the bar a little, we will make progress.
One factor has created the division between religious humanists and those who oppose religious humanism: religious humanists wish to pursue avenues of evolution and eventual transformation, while those opposed to religious humanism only want to whine and complain. Sorry to be so blunt but it’s true. You do not have to join in the effort to realize Dewey’s vision but kindly stop demeaning those of us who do.
I understand what you’re saying, and agree in theory. In reality, “religion” has become a completely loaded term. It’s a lot like the word “manifesto”. It’s a perfectly good word, but it is and always will be associated with it’s partner word, “Communist” as in the Communist Manifesto. So when the Humanist Society (I think it was) came out with the “Humanist Manifesto” I almost crapped myself over the sheer stupidity. The same is true with religion. We’d all be better served by coming up with a new term altogether, like some use “spirituality” which isn’t nearly as loaded a term. As long as you use “religious” it will mean something, rightly or wrongly, that’s associated with the big three religions, and might even be seen as giving in or agreeing with the adversaries.
I understand what you're saying, and agree in theory. In reality, "religion" has become a completely loaded term. It's a lot like the word "manifesto". It's a perfectly good word, but it is and always will be associated with it's partner word, "Communist" as in the Communist Manifesto. So when the Humanist Society (I think it was) came out with the "Humanist Manifesto" I almost crapped myself over the sheer stupidity. The same is true with religion. We'd all be better served by coming up with a new term altogether, like some use "spirituality" which isn't nearly as loaded a term. As long as you use "religious" it will mean something, rightly or wrongly, that's associated with the big three religions, and might even be seen as giving in or agreeing with the adversaries.We can have lengthy discussion about strategy but the irony here is that I have been imploring Lausten not to use the word "religion" when he means "theism."
I understand what you're saying, and agree in theory. In reality, "religion" has become a completely loaded term. It's a lot like the word "manifesto". It's a perfectly good word, but it is and always will be associated with it's partner word, "Communist" as in the Communist Manifesto. So when the Humanist Society (I think it was) came out with the "Humanist Manifesto" I almost crapped myself over the sheer stupidity. The same is true with religion. We'd all be better served by coming up with a new term altogether, like some use "spirituality" which isn't nearly as loaded a term. As long as you use "religious" it will mean something, rightly or wrongly, that's associated with the big three religions, and might even be seen as giving in or agreeing with the adversaries.I tend to agree with the thrust of what you are saying here. But even the term "spirituality" can denote supernatural elements, as it includes the root word "spirit". "Spirit" can simply refer to a certain kind of emotional state, as in "team spirit", but it can also refer to supernatural entities, as in the "Holy Spirit" or spooky spirits of the formerly living. Nevertheless, "Spiritual Humanists" seems to be a step in the right direction from "Religious Humanists", in my way of thinking. It is also less bulky than the qualified "Religious but not Theistic Humanists". But, personally, I wouldn't want to rule out an alliance of all humanists, even including "Theistic Humanists".
As long as you use "religious" it will mean something, rightly or wrongly, that's associated with the big three religions, and might even be seen as giving in or agreeing with the adversaries.First off, that's clearly not true. Any word can undergo a change in its commonly understood associations and meanings. Take the word "gay," for example, completely transformed in meaning within a lifetime. I assure you, when I use words like "religion," "spiritual" and "faith" our theistic adversaries are not confused into thinking that I'm giving into or agreeing with them. We don't use words in a vaccum, and you can be sure that when I use these words within earshot of a theist, he knows that I'm using them to oppose a theistic point of view. But let's assume it was true. Ask the question I've been asking over and over: so what? A common fallacy is to focus on the gross numbers, when the germane inquiry is the marginal change. Listen to the right wing excoriate Obama for the high unemployment rate, ignoring that near economic collapse of 2008. We can use these words and remain in the minority but the germane question is: what difference are we making? Let's examine the alternatives. Letting the status quo be is a losing proposition. We want to change the game. Using these words our way can only shake things up, if it makes any difference at all. If some people mistakenly think we agree with them, so what? It makes no difference. But if we can get our perspective out there, it can only help to change minds. Here's the worst scenario: We are so disgusted by the words associated with religion in any form that we go out of our way not to use them, thereby creating the impression in the general population that we are just a group of OPOGs (old, pissed-off guys), whom no one wants to be around or have anything to do with. And then not only does no one listen to us, they dislike us, won't vote for humanists for public office, will try to keep any influences they associate with us out of the schools . . . in other words, we'll end up doing pretty much what our predecessors did. Let's stop making their mistakes.
Here’s the worst scenario: We are so disgusted by the words associated with religion in any form that we go out of our way not to use them, thereby creating the impression in the general population that we are just a group of OPOGs (old, pissed-off guys), whom no one wants to be around or have anything to do with. And then not only does no one listen to us, they dislike us, won’t vote for humanists for public office, will try to keep any influences they associate with us out of the schools . . . in other words, we’ll end up doing pretty much what our predecessors did. Let’s stop making their mistakes.While I don't disagree with your definition of Humanism Paul, the term "religion" connotes at least to me the textbook definition of a belief in, and worship of a supreme being. That being said however, and speaking as a Secular Humanist and an Atheist I define my personal philosophy as non-theist as some of us do on this site, e.g. Occam I believe. I in no way consider myself an OPPG nor does anyone around me who is aware of my personal philosophy, and many of them are fundamentalist xtians including close family members. So interacting positively with theists is something I do on a daily basis. We don't "us v. Them" in our discussions and barely touch on religious philosophy, most of the time we talk about the challenges of daily life and rarely do even mention "religion" as a tag. There are times however when I get my hackles up when problems are blamed on god or Jesus; I roll my eyes and we go back to talking about bills and the cost of living. To sum up, I like someone who is open, kind to a fault, sensitive to the needs of others and community minded, and to be honest it's really not what you call your personal philosophy but what you do that really counts. There are lots of pretentious, grumpy assholes who call themselves xtians. Believe me, I know a few and avoid them whenever possible. Most theists have learned to interact with me just as they had to learn to interact with the African-American community, the Asians, Indians, and LGBT (some of whom are teachers in our district) so I don't get hung up on titles. I'm an Atheist, not because I joined a group who oppose theists but because after a careful 20 year search for the roots of xtianity and religion in general it led me to the conclusion that it was an illusion, no god demons or angels. And as to religious Humanism, you can call yourself whatever you want and it won't offend me in the least. as I told my students once, you can worship the "sacred porkchop" for all I care as long as you really care for yourself and your fellow man. BTW, snake handling is NOT caring for yourself. Just thought I'd throw that in; religious dogma really does make my hackles go up and in that vein I would and have lashed out. So, a Humanist is just that, a noun. Append any adjective to it you want, it still means essentially the same thing when it all boils down to it, religious or secular. I only oppose the close minded dogmatic pretentious bigots and they come in all colors and sizes if you catch my meaning. Cap't Jack
MMMmmmmm… Sacred porkchop… Yummy.
Sorry, Capt Jack, I’m not sure why I imagined myself as Homer Simpson reading your post.
Maybe I’m brain dead from spending too much time in the Philosophy section of the Forum.
Check it out Tim, I learned about the sacred porkchop from a story I heard while visiting my relatives near Santa Barbara. It seems that a cult had been formed around a belief that their leader was a seer and could foretell the future by tossing a porkchop in the surf and when it washed up he could “read” it and guide the group with it’s inherent wisdom. I don’t know how you Texans deal with porkchops but Appalachians prefer ours grilled or baked, which only guides me to the table! It’s often accompanied BTW with the “sacred salad” and the “holy” mashed potatoes.
Cap’t Jack
Mostly we fry our sacred porkchops, but soaking it in seawater 1st might not be a bad idea. Maybe it would help us foresee our high cholesterol levels.
I joined a liberal church, thinking it was leading the way in reforming religion. We fought the good fight to promote inclusiveness of LGBT. Then I realized, why am I trying to get this institution to do something that the rest of the world is already doing? Maybe my 200 member congregation is on the right side, but the organization as a whole is not. And it is the structure of the org, how they make changes, how they rely on dogma instead of evidence, that is keeping them on the wrong side.
Starting something new, like a humanists organization probably makes more sense than trying to reform the old organizations. Whether or not that org calls itself a “religion" doesn’t matter. If it protested at funerals with signs that said “God hates fags", that would matter. If it taught children that supernatural forces guided evolution, that would matter. If it did not listen to reason, that would matter. These are the things I whine about. If your religion is not doing those things, it shouldn’t bother you.
We are all shaped by our experiences, which can color how we look at things. As Lausten points out, some people may do the right things, call it religion and that’s fine.
To ask “does it matter,” we have to ask “matter to whom and in what context.” Calling it a religion may be fine with a person on the outside of that religion, it may not matter to them. However, it might matter to a person within the religion. Or maybe it just matters that they don’t want to feel as though they’re being dismissed as insignificant or unimportant, or having something suggested about them that isn’t true. No one has said anything wrong here, it’s just another clarifying distinction.